It has been said that if anyone wants to see something badly enough, they can see anything, in anything. Such was the case recently, but unlike some ghostly visage of the Madonna in a coffee stain, this was a vision of our ancestral past in the form of one recently discovered prehistoric skull, dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

Papers across the globe heralded the news with great fanfare. With words like "scientists hailed" and "startling find" sprinkled into the news coverage, who couldn't help but think evolutionists had finally found their holy grail of missing links?

For those of us with more than a passing interest in such topics as, "Where did we come from? And how did we get here?," this recent discovery and its subsequent coverage fall far short of its lofty claims. A healthy criticism is in order.

Practically before the fossil's discoverer, the French paleoanthropologist Michel Brunet, could come out of the heat of a Chadian desert, a number of his evolutionary colleagues had questioned his conclusions.

In spite of the obvious national pride, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History of Paris sees Brunet's skull as probably that of an ancient female gorilla and not the head of man's earliest ancestor. While looking at the same evidence, such as the skull's flattened face and shorter canine teeth, she draws a completely different conclusion.

Of course, one might be inclined to ask why such critiques never seem to get the same front-page coverage? It's also important to point out that throughout history, various species, such as cats, have had varying lengths of canine teeth. That does not make them any closer to evolving into another species.

A Washington Post article goes on to describe this latest fossil as having human-like traits, such as tooth enamel thicker than a chimpanzee's. This apparently indicates that it did not dine exclusively on the fruit diet common to apes. But apes don't dine exclusively on fruit; rather, their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, lizards and even the flesh of monkeys. The article attempted to further link this fossil to humans by stating that it probably walked upright. Never mind the fact that no bones were found below the head! For all we know, it could have had the body of a centaur, but that would hardly stop an overzealous scientist (or reporter) from trying to add a little meat to these skimpy bones. Could it not simply be a primate similar to today's Bonobo? For those not keeping track of their primates, Bonobos (sp. Pan paniscus) are chimpanzee-like creatures found only in the rain forests of Zaire. Their frame is slighter than that of a chimpanzee's and their face does not protrude as much. They also walked upright about 5 percent of the time. Sound familiar?

Whether it is tooth enamel, length of canines or the ability to walk upright, none of these factors makes this recent discovery any more our ancestral candidate than it does a modern-day Bonobo.

So why does every new fossil discovery seem to get crammed into some evolutionary scenario? Isn't it possible to simply find new, yet extinct, species? The answer, of course, is yes; but there is great pressure to prove evolution.

That leads us to perhaps the most troubling and perplexing aspect of this latest evolutionary hoopla. While on one hand sighting the evolutionary importance of this latest discovery, a preponderance of these articles leave the notion that somehow missing links are not all that important any more.

According to Harvard anthropologist Dan Lieberman, missing links are pretty much myths. That might be a convenient conclusion for those who have been unable to prove evolution via the fossil record. Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution. It is impossible for anything to evolve into another without a linear progression of these such links.

The prevailing evolutionary view of minute changes, over millions of years, is wholly inadequate for the explanation of such a critical piece of basic locomotion as the ball-and-socket joint. Until such questions can be resolved, superficial similarities between various species are not going to prove anything. No matter how bad someone wants to see it.

Farmer is a professional artist living in Houston. He can can be contacted via his Web site, www.theglobalzoo.com

Ones worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe. Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

Exactly. Atheists are required by their faith to find naturalistic explanations for the existence and development of the universe. Of course they will deny it, and claim that their reasons preceded their faith, but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

Ones worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe.

But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution. And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.

Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.

I had the same kind of reaction. With nothing but an old skull, we are now required to believe that there is enough evidence that the skull is that of a human  not an ape. By the way, Im curious how it can be deduced from a skull fragment whether the creature walked upright?

Agreed. Finding a partial skull and deducing that it belonged to a critter who walked upright is embarassingly unscientific. And to think that I snicker at those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I guess I owe them an apology.

Of course they will deny it, and claim that their reasons preceded their faith, but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

EsotericLucidity, banned for being a troll shortly before Subliminal_Kid was, once pointed out that there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism.

And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism. Agreed?

There are philosophical naturalists, yes. They're a subset of the people who despise creationists.

Some do, some dont and many are not sure. I would say that says a lot about the open-minded attitude of religious people. How about the reverse? Would you say vast numbers of atheists accept creation? If not, cant we conclude that atheists are close minded on this subject? And that is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me make it.

And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.

That is a totally subjective and unproven assertion on your part, not doubt driven primarily by your belief system.

 It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.

If science has a job it is to question everything. Unfortunately for the atheist faithful, the theory of evolution is . evolving. For those whos faith is atheism I have no doubt that they would wish that people would stop questioning their faith in the naturalistic explanation of everything. Unfortunately, not everyone is so easily cowed into the easy acceptance of the theory-du-jour by snide remarks. By the way, how can one determine  from a hominid skull whether the creature walked upright?

When I was a kid, I saw clouds that were shaped like different things, too. One time while playing by the creek, I found a rock shaped like a fish. See? I can see things just like these scientists. (Can I get a nobile prize for that?)

It is strange how Darwinists claim that they encourage science and dont even touch on religion. What are those symbols on the back of cars the fish with legs and Darwin in the center  or a Darwin fish eating the Christian symbol

They hold up Christians that accept their beliefs only to laugh at them  at least some of them. (a hollow laugh)

They hold up Christians that accept their beliefs only to laugh at them

Have you ever noticed their argument? "Prove there is a God", yet not once have they come up with proof themselves that says there isn't a God! How can they deny him without proof of something else to take his place?

So, does materialistic naturalistic science reveal it's Godless agenda by 1) sticking to its story despite the evidence or 2) revising its story every so often to fit the evidence?

I wish there were no "materialsitic naturalistic" science. I wish there were only "science" that was willing to accept whatever conclusion was allowed by the evidence. Alas, some misdefine science in such a way that certain possible explanations are ruled out in advance regardless of evidence. That is the subjective "materialist naturalistic science" that undermines plain old, non-philosophical, objective science. The kind Newton and Pascal and the rest of the giants practiced.

Now as to the specfics of your question : it does number 2 in the particulars in order to do #1 in the general. In other words, naturalsitic assumptions are NEVER ALLOWED TO BE QUESTIONED! That is "sticking to the story despite the evidence". That is the only story they stick to...that it is all naturalistic. Everything else must be constantly changing to be bent around their one absolute.

That is where #2 comes into play. Any naturalistic explanation, regardless of how contradicted by evidence, is taken to be infinetly better than any supernatural explanation, no matter how obvious. These leads to missing the true explanation so that an infinte series of flase explanations must be tried and discarded, even while the true explanation is sitting there like the elephant in the room.

So I say that they DON'T change regardless of evidence in philosphical underpinnings, and this causes them change constantly in terms of the particulars. Since they miss the obvious truth, that forces them to set a series of untruths as proposed explanations. These are being shot down with increasing rapidity as our power to test hypotheses grows.

I hope I am getting this across. The point is somewhat hard to grasp, how an error on point one of your question leads quite naturally (no divine intervention required!!) to errors of the nature of type two.

While I am one who does not see why there must be this "one OR the other" approach, you've made your points very well and exposed the atheists for what they are. By actively embrassing the idea that there is not and can not possibly be such a thing as "God", they've pre-determined their own inability to accept the idea of "Intelligent Design" or "Creation" in any form.

Have you ever noticed their argument? "Prove there is a God", yet not once have they come up with proof themselves that says there isn't a God! How can they deny him without proof of something else to take his place?

Actually, I am a very religious person and actually believe that God is important in the development of life here on Earth.

Unfortunatly, those that have devoutly supported the Creationist side of the argument, have actually achieved the exact opposite of their desired intention.

I love to read these threads, but so far, the Creationists are loosing.

Why? Because they have absolutly failed to present an alternative argument of HOW things work. Oh, they are more than happy to say WHO and WHEN, but always avoid the basic question.

Just once, can anyone from the Creationist side present a hypothesis of HOW it works?

I know that I will not receive an honest reply. Why? Because I have asked this simple question for 5 years now. Not once, has anyone attempted to answer my simple question.

They actually fear the word create so much, they will deny anything was created.

The irony is that they enclose themselves in this naturalism genome and refuse to mutate or evolve by way scientific data that contradicts their belief structure. Naturalism as far as human intelligence can go  and nature provided them with the intelligence to figure this out Go figure!

Heartlander, I am one that can accept the supernatural creation of life, and development of the species on Earth with guidance.

My question is HOW?

How does the supernatural alter DNA? Can this be reproduced in a lab? If not, why not?

If God directs the development of species on Earth, then we should be able to document this. New species are being developed all the time, so it should be a simple task to document how God alters the DNA of a species.

How does the supernatural alter DNA? Can this be reproduced in a lab? If not, why not?

Can we reproduce the Big Bang Create time Form molecules from scratch?

If God directs the development of species on Earth, then we should be able to document this. New species are being developed all the time, so it should be a simple task to document how God alters the DNA of a species.

We share 96.4% or our genes with an orangutan. We can go to the moon, communicate with computers, and drive on roads. Why?

We share 94% of our genes with mice (mice to men) our genes make up 10% of our genome. There is still much to learn  and I am excited.

There is a very real and specific answer to this. Do you know what it is?

And the answer is > > >

I don't know.

I am saying that right now, neither you, nor I, nor Vade, nor any evolutionist knows how God -- the idea that we are here by accident is irrational -- has caused different types of living organisms to occur.

No. But what I do disagree with is so many people (including scientists) always talk about the Theory of Evolution as the Law of Evolution. This missing link is the biggest stumbling block to proving evolution from one species to the next species. So we're not talking about 1 missing link, we're talking millions of missing links. Say scientists find a fossil of a fish and they also find another fossil of a fish very similiar except the later find is of a bigger fish. Now they believe that no species rapidly evolves so they look for the missing link that ties the evolution together. The problem is that there has been NO missing link found for any species that shows natural evolution.

"It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe."

My question to you is why do evolutionists delude themselves and try to delude others in their "religious" views on evolution when their beliefs have a gaping hole in them? Why do they propound their beliefs as Law when in reality it is just another Theory?

I'm not sure why you think that's important given the open contempt in the "scientific community" for religious explanations for origins. Don't believe me, see Eugenie Scott's "National Center for Science Education."

Interesting...what IS goING on. Why do you suppose then that "scientists" continue to foist simple mechanisms on the unsuspecting public as acceptable explanations for diversity? That's not an explanation for what IS goING on, but rather an unsupported extrapolation of what WENT on. Just my $0.02.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.